 The Urban Design Commission requires a quorum of five members to be present and available for voting. Members of the commission may be attending remotely in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act. The following members are present today. Chairman Gannon Greese, Commissioner Jesse Stamper, Commissioner Mary Kay Hughes, Commissioner Gwen Harper, Commissioner Steve McKeown, Commissioner Douglas Cooper, and Commissioner Gareth Harrier. Staff present today are Lorelei Willett, Jamie D'Angelo, Rich McCracken, Anna Baker, Christopher Austria, Brian Linus, Daniel Leal, and Randy Hutchinson. Today's meeting agenda can be found online at www.fortworthtexas.gov. Speaker registration forms must have been turned in prior to the start of the meeting. Today's public hearing is being documented by video conference recording, which will be available on the city's website. To achieve a timely and orderly meeting, the UDC requests that the following rules of procedure be respected. All participants will be muted when not speaking in order to avoid any potential background noise. Each case will be called and the sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise directed by the chair. All ensuing dialogue shall be directed to the UDC only. After each staff presentation, the applicant and other proponents will be given a total of seven minutes to speak. Opposition may then speak for seven minutes. Continuation beyond the speaker's allotted time will be subject to the chairman's sole discretion and approval. For attendees, please remember to look directly at the webcam, not at the screen when speaking. All other meeting procedures will adhere to UDC adopted rules of procedures to the extent practicable. Following the official close of each case hearing, the UDC will remain in open session to discuss and vote upon the item in question. During this time, no further public testimony or commentary will be allowed unless directed by the chair. A closed executive session may be held with respect to the posted agenda items for the UDC to receive advice from legal staff. For additional information on any case on today's agenda, you may contact the Development Services Department at 817-392-8000. Thank you for your attention. Mr. Chair, will you please call the meeting to order? Thank you, welcome to the October meeting of the Urban Design Commission. Are there any announcements from any of the audience members? Right, have the commissioners had a chance to review the meeting minutes? Yes, I was not marked as present for those meeting minutes, even though I was definitely here. Okay, so it sounds like we have one correction on the meeting minutes, but any other errors or omissions? Rich, should we defer approving the meeting minutes till the correction is made? Yeah. Okay, so I would move to approve noting that I was present for the meeting. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Chairman Greese, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Stamper? Aye. Commissioner Harrier? Aye. Commissioner McKeown? Commissioner Cooper? Aye. Commissioner Hughes? Aye. And Commissioner Harper? Aye. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you, good morning. Your first case today is UDC 22092 on the 800 block of Bryan Avenue for a temporary gravel lot. At the September 20th, sorry, September 15th meeting, the UDC approved waivers to the nearest outside development standards and guidelines to allow the construction of five transitional parking lots to support the implementation of the 10 year master plan for JPS. The applicant is seeking waivers for the creation of an additional temporary lot in the 800 block of Bryan Avenue. The JLC building at 801 South Main Street in the connected lots at 800 806 and 808 Bryan Avenue are also designated as historic and culturally significant and therefore requires their certificate of appropriateness from the historic preservation officer for the creation of the temporary lot and any other future development on the lots. The HPA was also requiring a temporary protection plan from the applicant for the JLC building for any effects the temporary lot may have on the structure. The proposed mitigations from the temporary protection plan are included in your staff report. The transitional lot is part of a network of transitional lots that are proposed in the area for future development. Given the proposed gravel material, it is unlikely that the creation of the temporary lot adjacent to the historic property will have a negative impact on the structure. However, the plan may require additional items of consideration as the project progresses. The waivers for the transitional lot are supportable due to its temporary purpose and minimal impact to the existing site, which is an empty lot and does not currently contain street or pedestrian improvements. Any proposed plan for future development will also require conformity of the historic preservation ordinance of the near Southside Development Code and Standards and Guidelines. Given the above, the staff recommends the following motion that the request for a certificate of appropriateness for waivers from the near Southside Development Code Standards and Guidelines for lot E be approved subject to the following conditions that the sidewalk network around the site be completed, that the applicant can continue to work with staff on appropriate temporary protection plan and that any adjustments made to the drawings be submitted to the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. This concludes the staff report. Thank you. Are there any questions before we open the case? All right. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this case? Good morning. My name is Anna Carrillo and I'm the civil engineer for JPS with Carrillo Engineering. And I really am here since we heard this case, well, very similar cases for all the other parking lots last month. I would just like myself and the owner available for to answer any questions on anybody may have. Okay. Are there any objections to the conditions that were placed on the other lots with the improvement sidewalk improvements? No, there is not. Okay. And what's the proposed duration for these temporary lots? I think it may have been discussed at the last meeting but I've forgotten. The overall completion phase of the transitional period is about seven years projected. What we discussed last year is that period will be dynamic in nature because of the need and demand for parking at different times because obviously as the other parking is constructed further south and on the main campus which is part of the program then there will be parking and we won't have the need for as many parking spaces. On these temporary lot. So they may be used for the storage of construction materials at different times. So that use will be dynamic and organic as the program progresses. Okay. Is there a phasing plan that's already been set out within those seven years of when these lots might be used for parking versus storage or? Yes, there is. There's not so much a very detailed schedule that says a particular month of a given year this will be transitioned into something else because I think that transition will happen organically but there is a phasing program as to where a projected timeframe for when the parking garage will be constructed for example. So there is in the overall program a phasing plan. Okay, so since there really aren't any guidelines or standards in place for these temporary parking lot uses would there be any objection to putting like a two year approval on this as a temporary and then come back as the project progresses? I think the need is immediate for these lots. So I don't know that there would be any objection but it would probably, I don't know that that's really necessary especially because we didn't get that on the other lots. So I don't know that that's exactly necessary. Yeah, and I think that may have been an oversight on our side and that's why we're just trying to talk through this process since it's sort of new to do these temporary lots. What do you anticipate the purpose of that timeframe or the time limit to be? Well, just knowing that in the district a lot of things can change in two years. If ownership or something changes to those lots then the new owner may come in and feel that some of those approvals are already in place. You know, we're just trying to look for the long-term redevelopment of those lots and ultimately we want them to comply with the guidelines. Sure, I don't think that we would be opposed to a condition that if some of those situations take place then we would need to revisit the plan. So for example, if it changed ownership then that would be something that needs to be addressed at the time. So maybe some conditions would be appropriate. Any thoughts from some of the other commissioners, in this case? So would you think like putting on there that if the ownership changed it would have to come back before the UDC for like a new approval? Approval would expire. Yeah, maybe the approval would expire with the current owner and we could also put a time period on there as well. And so the point of maybe doing the two year with JPS is that every two years so then in seven years it should be something different. Yeah, and I just throughout two years I'm I think maybe like for discussion. Sure, it could be like a five year plan or something. Let's have a question. What is the timeline for potential completion of the structured parking? Two years? Three years. Three years. I'd be open to just keeping it simple and offering a four year timeline. And if we keep the ownership aspect of this out of the equation and we just keep it to a timeline then no matter who owns it has to come back and say, hey, can we continue to use this as parking? Or will you continue to grant us a waiver because we have an additional need of another year? Right. I like not leaving it as a transitional lot into perpetuity. Yes, exactly. Yeah, I think that's the concern is that if these waivers are granted in perpetuity then these lots may not realize our highest and best use. Yeah, I think I can speak for the commission and that if JPS was continuing to be the owner and continued to have a need and was able to demonstrate that need that we would probably be just as likely to grant what we're granting today or granted last time. So it's just not wanting to turn these into parking lots in perpetuity like Chairman said. That seems appropriate to us. Yeah, and it may be something, Mike, that you wanna bring back to your committee too as you guys start to develop the guidelines for these temporary uses. Just an idea that there's not something that's in perpetuity that it's a limited time kind of thing. Okay, well, great. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you so much. Again, Douglas, this may be more of a question for staff and maybe getting somewhat ahead on the agenda but there is a similar case before us today. Is the regarding the timeline being a condition whereas that really didn't come up when we looked at these originally but I certainly agree it seems appropriate and maybe a little bit more well thought out at this point but is the condition also something because of there is a, the difference in another case is they're going to be charging or parking and then there's less of an, maybe an incentive to redevelop that now that there's a income generating lot versus where it seems these are probably open to the public and no charge. So was that part of that thought process and forgive me if I'm kind of getting off task here but I just wanted to see if there was some kind of connection of the timeline because of the paying for parking. I mean, that was my initial thought process but that is a great point for those other lots that yeah, they are, if they are being developed for profit but they're non conforming with the zoning regulations that sort of causes a little conflict of interest. I mean, this one I think it's not that we don't trust JPS or we know that these things are going to move forward. It was just a question that was brought up and we just want to make sure that it's not a lot in perpetuity because we just don't know what's going to happen in the future. I think Douglas, the fact whether or not the parking is being charged for at the time of granting the waiver doesn't necessarily ensure that that continues to be the case. So I don't think that would be a rationale. I think that the timeline or the timeline between coming back and asking is more critical than its initial proposed use whether it be paid or unpaid. Do you follow? Because that could always change. Sure, I'm less inclined to grant a waiver if they're just gonna be making money off of it and not interested in, you know what I mean, to meet the standards. So I think adding the timeline would cause it to come back and if that's the case then we would probably not grant them again or at least I would be inclined not to. Yeah, I was just thinking anybody could come and ask for a transitional parking lot and say it's, I don't intend to charge for it but at some point before the timeline expires could be charging for it. Sure, and they could and I think that's fine as long as it has a time period on it where they come back and we're like, okay, well now you're making much money you can put in some street trees. Yeah, fair enough. Great discussion. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of the case? Good morning commissioners. Mike Brennan representing near Southside, Inc. in our design review committee. Last month's meeting you had extensive testimony on the other lots. So today I'm just here to repeat our support for the approved waivers with those conditions including the sidewalk connectivity. Regarding time limits, I would definitely defer to JPS to see what they feel is reasonable but it sounds like there's room for agreement on that. We share just the uncertainty as to what the future might deliver. We certainly would not want these to remain as parking lots for the long-term where just the market dynamics I don't think really favor that outcome but if there's a way to allow for this transitional use allow future commissioners to fully understand the role that they're playing as JPS is building out their medical center then I would certainly be okay with a time limit. I think that's the only thing making sure that those future commissioners would understand it but I think at that point we'd be able to demonstrate with JPS that yes, they still have that critical function because the hospital towers are still under construction. For example, I think that would be easily demonstrated so that sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Yeah, well it's a great point because our terms are only two years and we serve a maximum of six years so a lot of us will roll off before that seven year phase happens. Thank you. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else to speak in favor or anyone here to speak against? Anyone listed to speak against? Okay, then we'll close the public portion of the hearing and open it to the commission. I just wanna make sure that it's clear that I'm agreeing that they can make it income producing, right? Just that if we put a timeline on it. Yeah, my point was just from, I think Douglas was asking how staff perceived the idea of whether there should be a timeline or not and I was just pointing out that from staff's perspective not knowing whether or not it was going to be paid the day after Sure. waiver was granted that they couldn't really use that as a. A barometer for anything. Not much, yeah. Yeah, I agree. But I feel like that's more our subjective purview and but if there's a timeline then like you say we can then say how has this been used? Sure. And do we still feel the way we felt originally about it? Which I, and I hadn't thought about that. I didn't think about that last month, but I think it's really good point on your part. And I agree that ownership kind of convolutes it. I think the timeline probably makes it the cleanest. Yeah. So I'm prepared to make a motion in favor of the waiver subject to staff's recommended conditions and the addition of a four year timeline. Okay. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Chairman Greese, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Stamper. Aye. Commissioner Harrier. Aye. Commissioner McKeown. Aye. Commissioner Hughes. Aye. Commissioner Cooper. Aye. And Commissioner Harper. Aye. Motion passes, I believe seven zero. Thank you. All right. I'm going to recuse myself. So. Your next case is also a transitional parking lot at 1120 West Magnolia. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for waivers from the near South side development standards and guidelines for the following items. Waiver from the requirement to provide roadside elements. Waiver to allow surface parking lot, the a surface parking lot to exceed 40% of the development sites total frontage length along a project's primary streets. A waiver to allow a surface parking lot to exceed 70% of the development sites total frontage length along a project secondary streets. Waiver from the requirement to screen parking lots fronting a public right of way and a waiver from the 40% canopy coverage requirement for parking lots. This property is owned PD, NST4R. The lot has historically been used as informal parking and turnaround by residents and visitors to the neighborhood. It is heavily used as parking now. It was rezoned as a PD base NS for a proposed hotel project that did not materialize and therefore has continued to be used as transitional parking by the public in this area. Staff is recommending conditional approval of the waivers identified associated with the transitional parking at this location. The rationale is as follows. The treatment of the transitional parking lot is contextually appropriate for this location. The site is effectively functioning as temporary parking for nearby businesses and sites and a lot of those businesses either have no surface parking or they have limited parking in the rear. However, this location in the district makes an important site for future infill. The site should therefore not be fully developed into a parking lot since this is not its highest and best long-term use. The Magnolia side of the lot is effectively complete. It has a 12 foot sidewalk, a pedestrian light, three street trees and on-street parking with a bulb out. So the requirements, the roadside requirements are effectively being met on that side and the Henderson side is the side that is not meeting the standards and this would be met or could be required when new development occurs on this site. It could be required at the building permit phase. The current site layout is considerate of pedestrian safety, accessibility and walkability. The location does prohibit access to the lot from Magnolia, which is the primary street and has recently added three ADA accessible spots. However, the site cannot currently be said to meet our zoning ordinance parking lot standards in regards to the dust-free component and also the spaces are not striped and laid out according to the appropriate required sizes. Therefore, staff is suggesting approval with the addition of the following conditions that the site be graded and gravel added to provide an appropriately dust-free surface and that a system to retain gravel on site and minimize runoff of gravel be provided that appropriate lighting be added to the site. This could be achieved by adding security lighting, utilizing the electricity in the Eastern Alley that additional buffering be provided between the pedestrian area along Magnolia and the spots on the street. That parking activity remain confined to this address and that vehicular access to vacant lots north of the site be prohibited and that the term of the waiver be limited, time limited with the option to request additional time in the future which will allow for these short-term improvements to be made while the parking activity continues. Under these conditions, the proposed design for transitional parking at 1120 Magnolia Avenue can be considered generally consistent with general development principles section 2B1 which requires development to promote a pedestrian-oriented urban form and section 2B2 which requires maximizing connectivity and access. Granting these waivers will support the continued activation of the site as transitional parking. Any questions? Any of the commissioners have questions of staff? I have one. Go ahead. And I didn't think about asking this on the last one. If we did a timeline of say 18 months, how's that triggered? Will staff pull that back up in 18 months? That is how we would have to keep track of it. I think it would be rich. That's correct. It would be on us, right? That's correct. We'll have to monitor it and get with applicant again at the 18 months and the case can be brought back forward if it's necessary at that point. Okay. Yeah, this is Douglas. So kind of that same line of questioning that at the point of 18 months, would it be staff that would administratively approve the extension or would it be a waiver that would come back before the commission? I don't think we could administratively approve it. Yes. So it should come back before the commission since that's a condition imposed by the commission. It's in connection with a waiver. And then on one of the conditions, it talks about the additional buffering between the pedestrian area along Magnolia. Is that just, you know, having some kind of imaginary line that demarcates a certain distance or are y'all referring to some other formal like physical barrier? Herb stops was what I was thinking. I'm trying to get to a good image of it. We have one later in the deck, essentially the right now, the sidewalk edge and the parking spot have no defined element to stop the cars from, you know, continuing to kind of move into the sidewalk space. So I think they could achieve that a couple of different ways, but curb stops was what I was, what I think was discussed at the DRC and what would make sense to staff. Thank you. I have a question of staff. So now that we've seen a couple of these transitional parking lot cases, I'm curious in the case of the JPS case, we have a temporary use kind of predicated on a construction timeline and a need for displacement from another site. And we're also talking about sites that really development hasn't reached yet. So as staff looks at a case like this, where those are not the same conditions, does that change how you perceive whether a transitional use is appropriate or not? Yeah, I think in this case, because of the location of this property within the district, it's a very good infill site, it's had projects proposed for it before, but also the neighborhood does use it for parking and have been using it for parking and support its current use as parking. So that, I think there's a tension there because that's been ongoing. I do think it is different than the JPS project because that is part of a formal master plan. This is really one property owner and a kind of informal development of a use. So I do think they are very different and we did think about that when we were discussing the timeline and that did come up with the neighborhood that the continued use is desirable, but there is a desire to get that street up to standard as well when the timing is right. And there's also a desire not to build infrastructure ahead of a development that would then need to tear it out or change it if they were doing something very different to serve their needs along Henderson. So. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? I got a question. Will this use be subject to any sort of tree preservation of the handful of trees that are on the property? Is there any? I think that I'll let maybe Brian answer that question, but I do think they still have to require, they have to, like if they cut, they want to cut down a significant tree, they still have to go through that process, correct? To pay a fee or go through review? Yeah. Yeah. The only, there are some slight differences from the urban forestry ordinance as a written language. So instead of 27 inch trees, it's 30 inch trees. There's no preservation required for any existing trees. They do have street tree requirements based on a linear footage, which I think is 25 feet. I don't know, I'm not. 35 on center, but I think, yeah, there isn't preservation requirements in our outside of significant trees, I think, in the near south side code. I think that's the one thing they would be, have to address. And then their street tree requirement would be waived along Henderson as part of this request until their waiver expired. Right. Yeah, I'm just thinking in terms of, and obviously when it was gonna be the hotel, those trees were gonna go, but you have trees that are presumably healthy now and you have cars parked underneath them for 18 months, you're gonna not have a healthy tree. So I guess that would come up for whatever the further development was that you'd have a tree that was now in decline. So it's maybe more so a pro tip and not so much a requirement. Okay, yeah, any new construction would have to go through the process again. And one of our conditions was that they can find this activity to the place where it is currently ongoing and not be extending it to where they're, yeah, because there's trees on vacant lots that move further north. And I don't know what condition, but yeah, I think it may be based on what's been happening at the site that there's been a lot of disturbance already. And I'm a bit unclear as to how far in, or north it's going. So it may be that none of those are actually in question because I know there's a pecan or a hackberry at that north end. So yeah, it probably wouldn't be impacted. Thanks. If there's no further questions to staff, we can open the public portion of the meeting. And hear from the applicant and those in support. Please state your name and city. Hi, my name is Randy Green. I'm parking operations manager for a parking management company here at Fort Worth. Thank you guys for letting us talk with y'all today. We manage the parking lot for the owner. The end use is a hotel and garage structure. That's probably we're like 24 months away than 18 with the way things are going now. The parking lot's been used or the lot's been used as a parking lot, a park. Currently we have local businesses that use it for their employee parking. We have restaurants that use it for their guest parking. The lots to the side like tonight, they're doing a charity function in the Magnolia area and we're using that lot as a parking for it. I mean, there's not a whole lot of parking lots in the area that can accommodate large amounts of cars. This is a good lot that can be used in the interim until construction's completed. We've planned on, we've already done some basic doesn't show in the pictures. We've added handicap accessible parking, had actually had it paved in. We've already added some gravel. The goal is to add more gravel all the way back to the tree line, not interfere with any of the trees. We're talking about putting planners in the front on the curb space as a barrier for the cars and then add curb stops on the backside of those to try to make it more aesthetic pleasing. We'll add some posts and ropes to delineate parking in the parking lot and for the short term offer a good alternative to for guests in the area. How many parking spaces do you feel that you can accommodate there in the one lot that this waiver encompasses? About 40 vehicles. Any other questions of the applicant from the commission? Seeing none. Do we have anyone else who'd like to speak in support of this case? Okay, let me jump back. So commissioner Stamper's points about two categories of transitional lots. That's something that we talked through with our committee. And I think that it's an important point because there are those that are transitional to assist a development site that is offsite, a development that's offsite. And that's the case for the most part with the JPS property. Although I think that those lots and public parking use during off hours will provide some much needed parking on the weekends in that area of South Main Village. This is really an important development site where for years now it has also provided some really essential parking in support of the businesses in this area. And so an outcome where we would lose that parking and still not have the site developed, that was an outcome that we would definitely want to avoid. And in the process, if we could get the lot to look better, function better, be a better neighbor, then that's a win. So let me jump to this slide. These are the main points that we, that framed our discussion with our committee. So it has been used informally for an extended period of time as a parking lot. It's providing parking for neighboring businesses, many of which are located in these historic buildings that do not have enough parking on site to meet their needs. Now there's a provision in our code that allows businesses to move into those buildings without having to provide parking on site or parking that's dedicated to their use so that we don't have people tearing down buildings just for surface parking. So this is a way to meet that need with this transitional use. It is however, if I had to rank the most significant development sites in the district, I think this is at the top of the list. We would not want this to be a surface parking lot long term. You've seen the plans before of the project that was proposed and the zoning was changed specific to support that project. That's why the PD zoning that Jamie mentioned in the work session, that is the zoning that's still in place. It is specific to that hotel project. Any alternative plans will have to go through the Urban Design Commission and the Zoning Commission and we are still working with the owner. Now, two years, if the hotel were to happen in two years, that would be great. I think that there's uncertainty on a number of levels there that made push that, I would say three years was the timeframe that I think we would be comfortable recommending as the period when we revisit the conditions on the site, provided that the applicant make those improvements as recommended in the staff report. So dust free surface, the buffer along Magnolia which beyond just the wheel stops, it sounds like they've committed to planters that would provide a nice edge there, delineating the parking spaces and so forth. We also had a conversation about lighting. Now, I've been checking out the site at night and because really the parking area only extends back to that first tree line, that section is pretty well lit. There's a new development that is just to the east of the four story apartment building. That's putting off some light. You've got light from the mill building across the street. You have the tree lights and the pedestrian light on Magnolia and you have an overhead roadway light as well. So in that area, it's not too dark. And I think that trying to find a solution to install additional lights might be problematic. That might be something that you wanna hear more from the applicant about. So we are committed to continuing to work towards the development of the site. We also support continued use of this site for urban village parking and remain in support of the requested waivers. Any questions for me? Thank you. Thanks, Mike. Okay. Do we have anyone else who'd like to speak in support of this case? Seeing none, are there any in opposition? Two. Do we wanna ask the applicant about lighting before we close in? I guess I'll give the applicant an opportunity to address the question about the lighting that Mike Brennan brought up before we close the public portion of the hearing. Yes. Well, like Mike said, it is pretty well lit. We are working with one of, like I said, a local business that actually uses that parking lot for some of their employee parking is the Schaefer Advertising Term, which has the historic building right there on the side. We're working with them to put up some pole with LED lighting for the lot for that it should well light that area that we'll be parking in. Okay, so you're not opposed to that condition that staff is requesting? Not at this time. Okay, thank you. Okay, and with that, we'll close the public portion of the hearing and have a discussion amongst the commissioners. Any thoughts on this case? I'm encouraged that they're working to develop the site. I don't really have a problem with the waivers. If we go with what staff recommends, my only question I guess would be if we do approve with what staff is recommending they have on their 18 months, do we want to extend to 24 since it sounds like it might be a little bit longer or do you want to stick with 18 and we'll review again at that point? I think I understand Mike's mentioning of a longer timeline because honestly, if they're breaking ground today on this hotel. Agreed. I mean, these are long timeline projects. So I think we, as a commission, just decide what we're comfortable with as far as whether that be a two-year timeline or a three-year timeline, but I can understand that 18 might seem constructive. I think we just make the, we would, if someone wanted to make the motion to approve this waiver subject to staff's conditions with the exception that the timeline be changed to a certain length. I agree. What do you, I feel like a little more time would be okay. I'm in support of a two or three year timeline for this, I think. I think, I think unlike the JPS case, if I were still to be on the commission three years from now or two years from now, if there hadn't been already some development on this site, as far as pre-development, I'd be very reluctant to that. Continue, agreed. Yeah. So this is very much a transition or a use in my opinion. Yeah, this commissioner Cooper, I'd be supportive of a longer timeframe because I think we're not only with the conditions that we'd be placing on there and a little bit of an investment from a lighting standpoint, landscaping, whatever other barriers they're gonna propose, but that's, this is also with the assumption that if they were to move forward with the plans with the current zoning and there was no deviation from that. And if there is, then that's even a further extended timeframe to go back through us zoning commission, city council. So I'd be supportive of 36 months as an amendment to the staff's recommendation. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to approve as long as the applicant works with staff to follow the conditions with the exception of the timeline being 36 months instead of 18. I second. We have a motion and a second. Temporary chairman, Stamper, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Harrier? Aye. Commissioner McKeown? Commissioner Hughes? Aye. Commissioner Cooper? Aye. And commissioner Harper? Aye. The motion passes 6-0. Your next case is a sign case at 6333 Kent Bowie Boulevard. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for a waiver from the Kent Bowie revitalization code standards and guidelines to allow two attached wall signs for a single tenant space where only one attached wall sign is permitted per tenant. This is the site and this aerial shows the location of the subject property which faces towards Kent Bowie. This is the property from the street. This is the property from the parking lot and this is the location of the two proposed signs. The Kent Bowie form-based code allows one attached sign per tenant with a total square footage per tenant of up to 1.5 square feet per linear foot of tenant space, the length of the facade, up to a maximum of 100 square feet total. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow two wall signs where only one is permitted. These are the signs as proposed. The first one being approximately 9.8 feet long by 2.7 feet tall with text reading the Blue Butterfly Cafe and some additional text above it that is sort of related to the logo. The second sign over the fenestrated area is approximately 19.2 feet by 2.2 feet. The item that reads a trim healthy experience and includes smaller text beneath. Both signs are placed at an appropriate height above the sidewalk as per the code. The sign package is generally appropriate for the context and the location of the project and is somewhat consistent with the intent of the CBRUS sub-district which encourages the development of neighborhood serving destination retail while encouraging design that accentuates architectural elements within the Ridgely area. The second and additional sign is located in an appropriate place on the facade and preserves the rhythm of sign placement and location along the block. It's pretty consistent with placement of existing signs that are currently there. The supplemental text included on both signs, however does create visual clutter in the sign presentation and staff is recommending that this be revised and reduced to simplify the sign silhouette. For example, the items listed in the second row of text on the secondary sign should be removed as they are too small to read from the street. They could be reintroduced as part of a window decal or as part of a sandwich board sign, both of which would be installed at pedestrian eye level and therefore would be more appropriate to the content. Given the above staff recommends the following motion, that the request for certificate of appropriateness for a waiver from the Camp Bowie revitalization code standards and guidelines to allow two attached wall signs per tenant space for only one attached wall sign is permitted be approved subject to the following conditions, that the primary sign be reduced to include only the logo and name of the business, that the secondary sign be reduced to one line of text and that any adjustments made to the drawings be submitted to the development services department prior to the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. This concludes the staff report. Thank you. Are there any questions of the staff before we open up the case? All right, is there anyone here to speak in favor of this case? Is the applicant here? I think we don't have the applicant as per the application, but we're checking to make sure nobody online is wanting to speak. And I think you mentioned in the work session that the neighborhood association provided a letter of support with the staff's recommendation. Yes, thank you. I had forgotten to mention that. There is a letter in the docket from Camp Bowie Inc. Supporting the sign package with similar conditions related to removing the additional smaller text. Okay, well, I guess if there's nobody here to speak in favor, nobody speak against. We'll close the public portion of the hearing and open it to the commission. If Camp Bowie Inc. is in support and with the conditions to remove the smaller text, I'm fine with it. Yeah, it seems like an appropriate use of signage given the architecture and the space available. And yeah, I know that we mentioned that the guidelines are very specific about the number of signs, but it seems square footage-wise they're within the range. Ben, I'll make a motion to approve as long as the applicant follows the conditions provided by staff. That's a second. With a motion and a second. Chairman Greese, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Stamper? Aye. Commissioner Harrier? Aye. Commissioner McEun? Aye. Commissioner Hughes? Aye. Commissioner Cooper? Aye. And Commissioner Harper? Aye. Motion passes 7-0. The next case on the agenda needs to be continued due to a noticing error. We do need to vote on that continuance. We don't. Okay, so we will just skip it. We'll go to the next case. I have an important phone call coming up at 11 o'clock so I have to bug out here in about three minutes. Okay, well, yeah, since that's the last case, you want to leave, that's fine. We'll just note that. Oh, I apologize. I thought we had one more for JPS, my bad. We do, yeah. We have one more. We're okay on quorum, though. Okay. All right, everybody. All right, good morning. As you see, we have UDC case number 22-094. This is for the JPS Southwest Home Medical. Did I get it right? No, I said JPS Medical Home Southwest, excuse me. And then this is a waiver for the 25% preservation requirement that we typically have on all commercial properties. This is located at the, I'm scattered today. So we have our lot here today, is located at Southwest corner of Mesa Springs Drive and Granbury, old Granbury Road, across from Ridgeway Trails, or a state's Ridgeway Estates, southeast of Avila Trails. This is going to be a proposed, and I'll show you the aerial here in a second. This is a Kroger area. This property actually used to be owned by Kroger. And then this is Crowley School District, and this is the, oh, I forgot the name, Mesa Springs Behavioral Hospital, I believe. You can see here, this is an aerial from 2011, roughly nine years ago. No trees on site, or a 6.42 acre site. Nufa is a 6.36, no trees. And then here we have 2022 aerial, June 2022 aerial. We have approximately 5,000. If I'm not mistaken, 5,000, I don't have my report in front of me, but 5,800, 5,000, something like that. Square feet, giving us roughly a requirement of preservation of 1,400 and some change. I really apologize, I'm not very well prepared today, but the idea is for 25% preservation on this site, we're only gonna get one tree which would be less than the credit we would give for a brand new tree. So, you know, as for a large tree, we give 2,000 square feet of credit. Our preservation on this site would be less than that. So, and then what we would be preserving would either be Mesquite or Hackberry. I don't know exactly which one. It would more than likely be down here in the corner, but this is a, as you'll see in the next site, this is a drainage pond. So it's gonna be very hard to preserve it. In, I don't wanna say replacement of, but in response to the lack of preservation, or I guess a balancing of preservation and planting, they're going to plant more than required 4.5% more. On this sheet that you see right here, we have 39 large trees, 21 medium sized trees. Maybe I got my numbers correct, incorrect. It's 19 medium sized trees and 21 small trees. That's probably not right either. I'm sorry. 123456789, 12 small, 19 medium sized trees. Medium, here and here and along Mesa and then 39 large. I gotta get to my slide that shows the numbers. There you go. This is the best, this is my favorite slide honestly. So obviously we got the NUFA. As you all know, this is the gross area property minus the easements, we have 6.36 acres. Their existing tree canopy is 5,823 square feet. The required preservation would be 25%, which is 1,456 square feet, which gives us roughly 0.5% of the entire site. The required tree canopy would be 1.8 acres, which would be 30%, which is roughly at 82,000 square feet. The provided preservation obviously would be zero and then the provided tree canopy, we go back to this page, would be 2.25 acres or 35.4% of the overall site. So in all staff supports this recommendation, we're not getting anything substantial in terms of preservation. And especially since I can get it from or the city can receive it from one tree or a few extra more. So that's why we are where we are here today. Excellent. Yeah, it looks like they're doing a very good job of exceeding the requirements for the provided canopy. They are. Also, I'd like to point out if I may, if I'm not mistaken, what I received, this parking here is future. So they're going to be planting before they actually get to that parking. Okay. So they're proposing plantings along the street and here in these areas before they build that parking. Which would give those trees an opportunity to establish themselves before they actually go in there with the pavement. That's great. So, which is always helpful from point of a tree. And you said there was a retention pond, is that towards the... This area over here? Yeah, okay. Is retention, am I getting that right, retention, detention? I always get the detention. I think it's confused, detention. It's backwards, right? Then like how they describe them. But I think it's a detention one. Yeah, I guess you're just detaining it temporarily on site. Great. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Any questions of the staff? Anyone here to speak in favor of this case? There is. I assume you're going to want your... We're pulling up the PowerPoint. Bryson had a good job of explaining the case for the record, my name's Barry Hudson, Senior Planner of the Dunaway Associates. And here we're representing JPS Health Network. So, y'all are used to just seeing the basics. I'd like to show you the beautiful building that's going to go in this place. It's about 40,000 square feet. So, just to recap, Southwest Corner of Mesa Springs Drive, Old Granbury Road. This case actually went to the Zoning Commission last week to amend the PD that was on the site to include the medical clinic use and also to approve the site plan. Since it had not come before the UDC yet, it was a conditional approval, pending approval of the urban forestry waiver. So, and here's the overall site. 4.6.4 acres, medical clinic, general examination rooms and everything. As mentioned, here's the phase one, 37 existing trees. I've been warned before not to call them trash trees, so I will not. So, the terminology is not trash trees, but undesirable voluntary trees. So, as already mentioned, 11 years ago, there were no trees on the site. So, this is actually the trees that are on the site. So, you can see the way they are, they really don't provide tree canopy on the site. So, but we do need, yes. These are numbers, not diameters. Exactly. That's not the size of the trees by any means, yes. Yeah, but you can see they're hackberries, willows and mesquite trees. So, not very desirable on the site. This is the overall site plan you were asking about, the detention plan. It is a detention, not retention. So, it is temporary detention on the site of 40,000 square foot building, 225 parking spaces on site as required. Phase two, the planning plan for actually what will be planted. It's easier to see as a color graphic. As already mentioned, let's see. So, 39 large trees, 27 medium trees and 12 small trees. So, 78 desirable trees replacing 37 undesirable trees. So, we're doubling the number of trees and replacing them with desirable trees. So, this provides 35% canopy coverage for the site, which exceeds the 30% required by over 5% on the site. So, this is the planning plan that goes with that and a rendered site plan. So, you really get the overall effect. But it, I just really need to emphasize, you know, what a beautiful building is gonna go in its place on this undeveloped property. This is the front main entrance drop-off. This is from the other side. This is the side, the urgent care drop-off that faces Mesa Springs Drive. This is an early rendering that does not include all of the street trees. So, there's actually along the left side here along Old Granbury Road, there's eight street trees there. And then going down Mesa Springs, there's actually 15 street trees in that location. So, here's the overall site plan and the project. Several representatives of JPS here today. We have to answer any questions if you have any. I don't have a single question. I wish all applications were this complete. This is fantastic. Anyone else here to speak in favor or speak against? No. Okay. All right. Well, we'll close the public portion of the case and open it to the commission. Do you have a motion? Yeah, I'll move to approve. Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second to call a vote. Chairman Grease, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Stamper? Aye. Commissioner Harrier? Aye. Commissioner Hughes? Aye. Commissioner Cooper? Aye. Commissioner Harper? Aye. With vote passes? Yes. Vote passes 60. Thank you very much. Well, I conclude this month's meeting. See you next month. Thank y'all.